Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Umesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
REJECTED

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

Umesh Kumar was arrested on 13 August 2025 in connection with a case registered under Sections 64 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act for alleged penetrative sexual assault on the minor daughter of the informant. The petitioner pleaded that he has a clean record, the FIR is fabricated, and the alleged incident date was delayed to falsely implicate him. The State and the informant’s counsel countered that the FIR contains a direct allegation of rape, the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNS, 2023, and a supporting medical report. The court examined the seriousness of the offence, the corroborative evidence, and the risk of tampering with evidence, and concluded that bail could not be granted. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case involving alleged penetrative sexual assault of a minor.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Bail
  • POCSO
  • Sexual assault
  • Minor
  • Criminal procedure
  • Evidence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91094 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2025 Thana- MUSAHARI District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Umesh Kumar S/O Manoj Ray R/O Village - Rajwara Bhagwan, P.S-
                 Musahari, District- Muzaffarpur

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    X W/O Late Dharmendra Ray R/O Vill.- Rajwara, P.S- Musahari,Dist-
                 Muzaffarpur

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP
                 For the Informant        :      Mr. Nilotpal Sharma, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   16-03-2026                     Heard Mr.Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner, Mr. Nilotpal Sharma, learned counsel for the

                   informant       and Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned Additional

                   Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   13.08.2025 in connection with Musahari P.S.Case No. 184 of

                   2025, F.I.R. dated 02.08.2025 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 64,351(2) of BNS,2023 and Section

                   4/6 of POCSO Act.

                                3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he

                   committed penetrative sexual assault with the minor daughter

                   of the informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91094 of 2025(3) dt.16-03-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

          submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. The allegation

          as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner

          has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and

          petitioner has been made accused in the present case due to

          some petty dispute. It appears from the FIR that the date of

          occurrence as alleged in the FIR is 01.08.2025 but the present

          FIR has been instituted on 02.08.2025 after delay of one day

          afterthought only to falsely implicate the petitioner in the

          present case.

                        5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned

          A.P.P. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail

          of the petitioner and submits that from a bare perusal of the FIR

          it appears that there is direct and specific allegation against the

          petitioner that he has committed rape upon the victim, apart

          from that, the statement of the victim was recorded under

          Section 183 of BNSS,2023 in which she has categorically stated

          that the petitioner has committed rape upon her and medical

          report of the victim also supports the allegation as alleged in the

          FIR.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to

          enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Musahari
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91094 of 2025(3) dt.16-03-2026
                                                           3/3




                         P.S.Case No. 184 of 2025, pending in the court of learned

                         Exclusive Special Judge POCSO Court No.III, Muzaffarpur.

                                      7. Prayer is refused.



                                                (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-

U          T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.